contract law 0.0 / 5 ? LawContractUniversityNone Created by: ShahjahanCreated on: 10-05-16 19:30 Taylor v laird offer must be communicated 1 of 26 Byrne v teinhoven withdrawal must be communicated 2 of 26 Dickinson v doods communication can be made by reliable 3rd party 3 of 26 Errington v Errington Unilateral offer cannot be withdrawn during performance 4 of 26 Ramsgate v montefire withdrawal can be made after an acceptable lapse of time 5 of 26 Hyde v wrench counter offer destroys original offer 6 of 26 Stevenson v McLean a request for information is not a counter offer 7 of 26 Entores v miles the acceptance has no effect until it is communicated to the offeror 8 of 26 Brogden v metropolitan railway co acceptance by conduct 9 of 26 Felthouse v bindley silence does not amount to acceptance 10 of 26 adam v Lindsell postal rule authority 11 of 26 brinkibon v stahag stahl instantaneous during office hours 12 of 26 Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co. V Grant posted to correct address with stamp doesn’t matter if it is lost 13 of 26 Balfour v balfour no intention to create legal relations between family members 14 of 26 Simpkins v pays where parties are not related to each other the courts are more likely to find legal relations 15 of 26 Lens v Devonshire club the courts are reluctant to find intention to create legal relation in a demostic setting 16 of 26 Edwards v skyways there is intention to create legal relations in a commercial agreement. 17 of 26 Currie v mirsa some interest, right or profit benefiting one party and some forbearance, detriment or loss or responsibility to the other party. 18 of 26 Tweddle v Atkinson consideration must move prom the promisee 19 of 26 Re Mcardle Consideration must not be past 20 of 26 Lampleigh v Braithwaite exception where past consideration is a precursor to the full consideration 21 of 26 Thomas v Thomas consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient 22 of 26 Chapel v nestle argument between sufficiency and adequacy confirmed that that consideration only needs to be sufficient 23 of 26 Stilk v myrick performing existing duty is not good consideration 24 of 26 Williams v roffey sufficient consideration as there was a practical benefit to the promisor and the promiser suggested this in the first place 25 of 26 Pinnels case no consideration for part payment of a debt 26 of 26
Comments
No comments have yet been made